Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:100

(Say: If you possessed the treasuries of the mercy of my Lord) — meaning the treasuries of His blessings which He has poured out upon all existing things. "Mercy" is a metaphor for blessings, and "treasuries" is a real or imaginative metaphor.

As for "you" (antum), according to the school of al-Hufi, al-Zamakhshari, Abu al-Baqa', Ibn 'Atiyyah, and others, it is the subject of a deleted verb that is explained by the verb mentioned later, because it is impossible for law (if) to be followed immediately by a noun. The original structure is "If you possessed, you would possess" (law tamlikuna tamlikuna). When the verb was deleted, the pronoun was detached. An example of this is the saying of Hatim when he was captured and a slave girl slapped him: "If a bracelet-wearer (a woman) had slapped me..." And the saying of al-Mutalammis: "If anyone other than my maternal uncles had desired my degradation, I would have set a brand upon their noses." The benefit of this deletion and explanation, as it is said, is brevity, for if one intended emphasis and said "tamlikuna tamlikuna," it would appear as wordiness and repetition. The exaggeration comes from repeating the attribution, or from repeating the condition, as it implies the repetition of the consequence (jazā') resulting from it, and it indicates exclusivity. This is based on the fact that "antum" is the very same pronoun as the delayed "tamlikuna"; therefore, in meaning, it is a fronted subject. Fronting the conceptual subject signifies exclusivity if the context is appropriate, so the speech then signifies the resulting holding back upon their unique possession of the treasuries. From this, it is known that the result follows from possessing them through participation with even greater priority. The Basrans adopted this derivation for such a structure, although Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Sa'igh and others expressly forbade placing a hidden verb after law in eloquent speech, allowing it only in necessity or rare speech; they consider the poetry of al-Mutalammis and the example of Hatim to be of that type. The truth is the contrary.

Abu al-Hasan 'Ali ibn Fadalah al-Mujashi'i said: The estimate is "If you were to possess" (law kuntum antum tamlikuna). Its outward appearance suggests that "antum" in his view is an emphasis for the deleted pronoun along with the verb, but this is nothing. Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Sa'igh said: The original is "If you were to possess" (law kuntum tamlikuna), then kāna alone was deleted and the pronoun was separated, so it is, in his view, the noun of a deleted kāna, and the sentence "tamlikuna" is its predicate. Similar examples are derived this way.

Abu Hayyan said, after quoting what preceded: This derivation is better because the deletion of kāna after law is known in the language of the Arabs. It is not hidden that the speech, according to what you heard first, is more beneficial, even if the obvious meaning is that the holding back here is upon continuous possession.

"Holding back" (al-imsāk) refers to stinginess, because stinginess is a specific type of holding back. When the object was deleted and directed toward the act itself—meaning "you would perform the act of holding back"—it became a metonymy for its most extreme and ugliest types. Its being a metonymy for what was mentioned is held by the author of al-Fara'id and others. It was suggested that it is implied with the meaning of stinginess, but this was countered by saying it is nothing, neither in wording nor meaning. According to what we mentioned—deriving from their saying to a stingy person "he is a holder-back" (mumsik)—it is "for fear of spending," meaning fearing poverty, as Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Ibn 'Abbas, and a similar report from Qatadah. Al-Raghib adopted this, saying: It is said "such-and-such person spent" (anfaqa) when he becomes poor. Abu 'Ubaydah said: anfaqa, amlaqa, a'dama, and asrama all mean the same thing. Some said that infaq has its known meaning, which is the spending of wealth, and there is a deletion in the speech: "for fear of the consequence of spending." It was also suggested that it is a metaphor for its necessary implication: running out. Khashyata (fear) is accusative as the reason for the action (maf'ul lahu). Considering it an infinitive (masdar) in the place of a circumstantial state (hal), as Abu al-Baqa' permitted, is contrary to the apparent meaning.

This verse has reached the ultimate limit of description regarding stinginess, which imagination cannot surpass, as it states that if they possessed the treasuries of the mercy of Allah the Exalted—which have no end—and were alone in possessing them without a rival, they would hold them back without any motive other than the fear of poverty. If you wish, compare it with the poet's words: "If your house produced needles for you, by which the courtyard would become cramped, and Joseph came to you to borrow a needle to sew the edge of his shirt, you would not do it." Even though it contains more than ten exaggerations, you see a disparity that cannot be measured.

Many scholars made the address in it general, which implies that every human being is stingy, as is the apparent meaning of what follows, even though it has been established that some possess altruism despite their need. The reply is that this is in relation to the True Generous One, the Absolute Bestower, may His Majesty be exalted. For man is either a holder-back or a spender, and spending by a rational being is only for a purpose, such as a financial or moral exchange like beautiful praise, service, or enjoyment, as in spending on the family. What is for exchange is a barter, not a squandering. Or it is in view of the majority, treating the others as non-existent, as it is said: "We have turned in our time away from the talk of noble deeds; whoever spares people his evil is, in his generosity, Hatim." This answer is, in my opinion, better than the first. Upon this is carried His saying: "And man has ever been stingy" (17:100), meaning exaggerated in stinginess. Qatr has come with the meaning of reducing spending, and it is the opposite of extravagance; both are blameworthy. It is said: "I qatartu the thing, and aqtartuhu, and qattartuhu," meaning I reduced it. "Such-and-such is muqtir" (poor). The root of this, as al-Raghib said, is from qutar and qatr, which is the smoke rising from roasting meat, wood, and the like. It is as if the muqtir (the stingy one) and the muqtar (the poor one) are those who only get the smoke of the thing.

It is said the address is to the people of Mecca who requested what they requested of the spring, rivers, and others. The intended meaning of "man," as in the first view, is the species. There is no doubt that the human species is molded upon stinginess because the foundation of its affairs is need. Some said "man" refers to the specific individual (the Prophet), and the Imam supports this.

The way the verse relates to what precedes it, if we specify the address, is that the people of Mecca requested the spring and rivers so that their sustenance would increase and expand for them. Thus, He, glory be to Him, clarified that if they possessed the treasuries of the mercy of Allah, they would be stingy and mean, and would not hasten to deliver benefit to anyone. The intention is to censure them for being at the extreme of stinginess while requesting what they request; or, the meaning is that this is their nature, so there is no benefit in granting them what they asked for. This is what al-'Askari and others said. Thus, the verse, in their view, is connected to His saying: "And they said: 'We will not believe you until you break forth for us from the earth a spring'." Generality is sufficient for the inclusion of the people of Mecca.

Abu Hayyan said: The appropriate aspect of the connection is to say that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was granted by Allah what no one else was granted of Prophethood and Messengership to humans and jinn. He, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was the most eager of people to deliver goodness to them and save them from misguidance. He persevered in that, risked his own soul in calling them to Allah, and presented that to the tribes and clans of the Arabs, generous with that, seeking no reward from them. Yet these are his relatives, and hardly one of them responds, save one after another, and they have persisted in their stubbornness and hatred, so nothing reaches him from them except harm. Therefore, Allah, may His glory be exalted, alerted by this verse to his—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—generosity and the offering of what Allah granted him, and to the impossibility of any good reaching him from them. It came, therefore, as an explanation of the gap between his—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—eagerness to benefit them and the lack of any good reaching him from them. End quote.

The connection between the verse and the sum of the preceding verses is that it makes one feel his—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—eagerness for their guidance. By my life, this is something that a sound taste and a straight mind reject. It is possible that the way of connection is its inclusion of their censure for excessive stinginess, just as what preceded it included their censure for disbelief; these are two evil traits, the harm of one being restricted and the harm of the other being extensive. Contemplate, for the path of the mind is broad, and Allah knows best His intent.

When He, glory be to Him, narrated about Quraysh what He narrated of stubbornness and defiance toward His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, He comforted him—may His majesty be exalted—with what happened to Moses, peace be upon him, with Pharaoh, and what He, glory be to Him, did with Pharaoh and his people. He said, Mighty is His speech: <<...>>